Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 23, 2024

R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C.

Judge
Nancy Brasel
Docket
0:22-cv-00942
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In R. L. Mlazgar Associates v. Focal Point, Judge Foster granted continued sealing of five documents while leaving privilege waiver unresolved.

Who this affects

The parties and the public: the parties may not publicly access the five identified documents through the court’s docket while they remain sealed, and public access to those judicial records is restricted.

What happened

R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, LLC concerned the parties’ joint request to keep certain documents filed under seal. The documents supported a dispute about whether to prevent a deposition.

The court agreed to keep three documents sealed because they contained confidential financial information. It also kept sealed an email and deposition excerpt involving an attorney-client privilege dispute, but did not decide whether the privilege had been waived.

Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the joint sealing motion and directed the Clerk of Court to keep all five documents under seal. The order permits either party to ask to unseal the email and deposition excerpt if the court later finds that privilege was waived.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C. · No. 0:22-cv-00942
Judge
Nancy Brasel
Date
Oct. 23, 2024

Background

The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing concerning a response and several exhibits filed in connection with Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for a protective order to prevent the deposition of Hoyt Webb. Plaintiff had filed the response and exhibits temporarily under seal and had also filed public redacted versions.

The parties agreed that the redacted portions of the response should remain sealed because they referred to the exhibits and deposition transcripts that Defendants had designated confidential. They also agreed that three exhibits, filed at ECF Nos. 247-6, 247-7, and 247-8, should remain sealed because they contained confidential financial information. The parties disagreed about two other exhibits, filed at ECF Nos. 247-14 and 247-15.

Legal standard

The court explained that parties may seal civil-case documents only under a statute or rule or with court permission. Judicial records generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that right is not absolute. Courts balance public access against legitimate interests in confidentiality. The presumption is weaker for materials supporting non-dispositive motions than for materials used to decide the merits of a case.

Court’s analysis

The court found that continued sealing of ECF Nos. 247-6, 247-7, and 247-8 was appropriate because the parties had a legitimate interest in protecting confidential financial information, and that interest was not outweighed by the public’s right of access.

The court also found sufficient justification to continue sealing ECF Nos. 247-14 and 247-15. ECF No. 247-15 was an email that Defendants identified as attorney-client privileged, and ECF No. 247-14 was a deposition excerpt discussing that email. The email involved a legal issue and communications among Defendants’ executives and Mr. Webb, identified as Legrand Holding, Inc.’s General Counsel. The court stated that the email appeared privileged on its face.

The court did not decide whether Defendants had waived attorney-client privilege by producing the email in discovery. It stated that the waiver issue had not been sufficiently briefed, including the dispute over whether the disclosure was inadvertent and whether Defendants properly attempted to retrieve the document. The court noted that either party could later seek to unseal ECF Nos. 247-14 and 247-15 if the court found that a privilege waiver had occurred.

Disposition

The court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. It directed the Clerk of Court to keep ECF Nos. 247-6, 247-7, 247-8, 247-14, and 247-15 under seal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.